Eyewitness to Film History in the Making

When I first arrived in Hollywood from the Midwest, I had several experiences that are lifetime memories, such as Katherine Hepburn tossing me a wave from her convertible next to what is now the American Film Institute , or Cyril Delevanti reciting his poem from John Huston's "Knight of the Iguana", and seeing firsthand the launch of George Lucas's professional career.

The film departments of UCLA and Southern California University had an annual film competition for students from both schools at a time when they and New York University were about the only schools in the country offering a degree in cinema.

In 1967, I attended the showing at UCLA's Royce Hall, and George Lucas's THX 1138 was a standout work among many very good ones. Not only was it the audience's favorite, but the judges awarded it best picture. Lucas was called to the podium to accept his award. He seemed nervous and shy at the microphone, but then startled as he was interrupted at the microphone, apparently a surprise to all on stage, by a lawyer from Warner Brothers who announced that Warners was offering whoever won the competition the opportunity to turn it into a feature.

That was of course George. It seemed an eternity while he stood speechless, mouth open. Warners already had the young Francis Ford Coppola under contract, so they assigned him as producer to George. I then saw the resulting feature "THX 1138" in 1971 at a theater in Hollywood. It was not great commercial success, but the success of the George Lucas career is legendary.

The Three R's

In an attempt at irony, I have often said "growing up" is the day the child realizes that no one else ever did.












The world is full of adults still driven by their childish motives and emotions. We have long expressed a child's formal learning needs as the three R's, reading, 'riting, and 'rithmetic which includes a little joke about the need to add spelling to the 'riting part. The three R's of adulthood should be rights, responsibilities and repercussions. Too often, we think the right's are confirmed automatically when we reach legal age, and grudgingly accept a vague notion of responsibility, and then suppress any further thoughts about repercussions. So much of our social order would be improved, if we were to analyze situations giving equal attention to all three. In some areas, we already fully integrate this idea, such as our traffic laws, in which the right to drive is firmly tied to our obeying traffic laws, and failure to do so has repercussions if we get caught or worse cause injury.

For example: some parents claim the right to keep their children out of sex education, or diversity sensitivity programs. All they need to do is sign a form, and their kids are kept from being exposed to this sort of knowledge and social awareness, end of story. Is that nuts or what?




















I can understand that these parents think they are protecting their children from influences that conflict with their religious beliefs, but who bears responsibility if one of their kids gets a venereal disease, or pregnant, or acts cruelly or violently towards a minority class mate? The claim of that right, has repercussions on their children, and maybe on other people's children, but what are the repercussions for the parent? Shouldn't the legal form signed by a parent include the parent's acceptance of full responsibility for any trouble their child gets into as a result, and shouldn't that carry with it civil and criminal consequences for the parent? As it is, the parent wants the right, but leaves the kid to suffer the consequences, when in fact they are guilty of child neglect, abuse and even endangerment.

Example: some talk show hosts claim "free speech" as a right when they are being broadcast in the employ of a broadcast license owner, which they think empowers them to say whatever they want without responsibility or repercussions for statements that would probably bring them a bloody nose or worse on the street. If I had to justify something I said by saying that it's no different from what hip-hop or rap artists say, then it's clear I've really messed up. How is that different from justifying my speech because I heard a character in a movie say it? Ludicrous! The Fox network has built an audience base by pandering to a malevolent streak that claims all sorts of rights to say or advocate extremist views, without any sense that the public forum has a responsibility to truth, fairness and circumspect analysis. They take a policy of bias and extreme partisanship and constantly blare out the words "fair and balanced." Tragically too many accept the hype as true. They take the phrase "suicide bomber" and change it to "homicide bomber" to advance a political idea that the perpetrator is a coward. I bet nobody at Fox has the guts to do the same if we were under occupation by a foreign power. A suicide bomber's intent is homicide and that phrase includes that concept. As a result of this nonsense at Fox, we are led to believe that the bomber did not die in the act, which means a cowardly act, but this is an out and out lie and distortion. We once had a fairness doctrine which protected free speech on licensed broadcast by insisting equal time be presented to opposing political views. Thank you Reaganites for this 1984ish change in our affairs of state. I know you want a one party system run by an elite oligarchy but there are lots of others of us who are not going to let us go there.

Example: a woman brings false charges of rape against three Duke LaCrosse players Reade Seligmann, Dave Evans and Collin Finnerty, and she is championed by Mike Nifong, a sociopathic prosecutor who can't stop grinning over the nightmare he brought upon these three innocent men. Now that all charges have been dismissed by the state's attorney general Roy Cooper, and he has taken the heroic step of declaring their innocence in a public press conference, we are left to ask who is responsible for the extreme harm to the lives of these men, families and friends.Women's rights groups, and African American rights groups exercised their right of free speech to mount major public demonstrations against the three. Where in all this did anyone take a moment to determine their responsibilities, and contemplate the repercussions should they happen to be wrong? These guys did everything right because they reacted to the charges in a responsible way, the prosecutor did everything wrong because he reacted irresponsibility, and the accuser is apparently simply looney and thus not responsible for anything. Nifong is the one who should have recognized crazed accusations and protected them from her. It is the height of lame back stepping to point out that they participated in a party where booze flowed and strippers were hired, and that one of them had a brush with the law over a different kind of assault. None of that justifies what happened to these guys, except in the eyes of the most hypocritical religious right.




Example: parents have used charges of child molestation in custody battles, and if the accused is the father, it can be very hard to refute this in court. The right to have your day in court, is supposed to carry the responsibility to speak truthfully and aid the discovery of justice, but the repercussion of penalty repercussion of a criminal perjury charge hardly seems sufficient to right the harm done to the wrongly accused. We all want to protect the children,
but we also must act responsibly to the accused, so the innocent do not have irreparable harm done to their reputation and peace of mind.

Proposed: if someone knowingly accuses another person falsely, that accuser should suffer the same penalty that would have befallen the accused.

Bobby Chase Follow Focus

I've posted a new video of Bobby Chase playing October 31, 2006 for the Southern Methodist Mustangs vs. Alabama.




This video is "Bobby only" and we used Final Cut motion control to keep the image squarely on him.









Since he is a film and video major, we thought he'd appreciate the technique.






Click here to go to video

Click here to go to a webpage with his bio and many photos.

TREASON !!!

"In the December 12 ruling by the US Supreme Court handing the election to George Bush, the Court committed the unpardonable sin of being a knowing surrogate for the Republican Party instead of being an impartial arbiter of the law." Vincent Bugliosi, "The Nation" Feb 5, 2001.

The destruction of American rule of law under the United States Constitution began in earnest with the Supreme Court decision to halt the vote count in Florida and consequentially to crown George W. Bush as President. Once in power, the Bush crime family along with their cronies and handlers, set about to subvert the constitution, gutting it of its power to regulate the federal government's intrusion into the affairs of its citizens. This unleashed an entirely unprecedented consolidation and abuse of power into an oligarchy with no national interest or benefit, instead the Bush cabal rearranged the federal government to a cabal of money and power players. It also gutted the constitution's separation of powers which led to the administration usurping power from any and all quarters, a process continuuing to this day as they have fired federal prosecutors who opposed their political agendae. However dishonest may have been George's ascent to the inaugaration platform should we not insist he hew to the oath he swore to become our president. Article II Section 1 "Before he enter on the execution of his office, he shall take the following oath or affirmation:--"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Growing up in the fifties, I remember there were conservative and liberal points of view in politics, but with whichever one felt more aligned, there was a mutual trust that the other shared the same mission to achieve the common good. We have seen in the five decades since, the conservative point of view being commandeered by those with selfish interests, twisting conservative philosophy into a pathetic pandering to wealth and power.

Of late, Karl Rove has achieved great success in duping Christian activists into an even more demonic expression of power corrupted beyond any hope of redemption. God must be disgusted by his loudest believers, and surely Jesus weeps for the darkness and hatred of those who call him Lord. Happy Easter, right? If Jesus came back this very day, he'd be pissed at Christians for not acting like Christians.

As outrageous as the White House staff misbehaved, it does not meet the constitutional definition of treason. Article III Section 3. "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court." {At this point, the White House may wish to change its policy towards the constitution and try to preserve it instead, since it may be their last legal resort against the death penalty for all of them.}

There are those who will get their panties in a bunch about "liberal bloggers", so what? No matter how many knuckleheads spew neo con propaganda, they're still knuckleheads who don't have the slightest clue about the damage they are doing to our planet and its people. The liberals they believe in, don't exist. What does exist is people who care how we live, how we treat the weakest and poorest among us, and the legacy we leave our children and their descendents.

Review of Alexandros Kapelis's Piano Recital

Other Reviews:
"Karma Cafe" (movie)
"Talk to Me" (movie)
"Eavesdropper" (play)
"A Mighty Heart" (movie)




The beautiful and nearly acoustically perfect Herbst Theater in San Francisco was the venue for the Bay Area piano recital debut of Alexandros Kapelis.

He is on a world tour sponsored by the Greek government presenting classical music inspired by Greek mythology. Upcoming performances are with the New York Philharmonic, Kennedy Center's Terrace Theater and recitals in Chicago and Montreal, and then on to Europe.

His artistry is mature, passionate and skillful, but he also betrays a delightful playfulness such as his interpretation of "For a Little White Seashell" by M. Hadzikakis. He proved he has mastered Debussy, Rameau, Kostantinidis and Clementi as well, and finished the recital with a virtuoso performance of "Etudes-Tableaux" by Rachmaninoff, which is not an easy task.

Bravo, Alexandros!

Other Reviews:
"Karma Cafe" (movie)
"Talk to Me" (movie)
"Eavesdropper" (play)
"A Mighty Heart" (movie)

Which Species Will Be Homoperfectus

We Homosapiens evolved to have the ability to manipulate our environment and change it to suit us. The life forms of earth are intertwined and interdependent in a biosphere that is fueled by sunlight and feeds on itself except for a few very primitive forms of life that can find nutrients in inorganic sources like soil and rock. If Gaia as the entity of life on Earth is a valid allegory for the Earth's biosphere, then it may be reasonable to explain our emergence as Gaia's attempt to cope with future life threatening disasters such as asteroids. Never was there another species able to anticipate a giant rock from the sky, and actually contemplate what might be done to avert its damage.

Now, we have turned our minds to the very nature of what we are right down to the very genetic code that gives rise to every aspect of our forms. Even before we get to cloning humans, we are already at work affecting the evolution of our descendents. We are dramatically shortening the process of species evolution within ourselves and we may be surprised how quickly our descendents become another species beyond Homosapiens. Although this is inevitable, it's not too late to ponder and plan what is best. There is wisdom in our current DNA. It has been winnowed through natural selection over eons and a multitude of bad mutations did not survive attrition. As we tinker with our species we dare not lose the original Homosapiens gene pool.

Homoperfectus is the presumed descendent from Homosapiens, but which species will be Homoperfectus? As different individuals and groups make decisions about what their offspring will be, people will make choices for a multitude of reasons, some of it scientific, humane and rational, but there's bound to be those whose culture or religious mind sets lead to human traits you or I might find wierd or objectionable. As we steer the descent of the our genetic line, it is inevitable that differences in objectives will begin to appear, and in time the Earth will be populated simultaneously by multiple species who branched off from homosapiens.

Some species may be developed for climate comfort. Since higher forms of animals can live practically anywhere on Earth, we may have human species adaptations such catlike pelts, or a functioning appendix for digesting simple vegetation, larger lungs for living at high altitudes, and I am not the first to suggest gills for breathing underwater. However, actual species that descend from us, may not be so dramatically different, yet different enough to be considered different species.

Philosophically you have to ask what is it about us that makes us human? We are "The Naked Ape". If you haven't read the Desmond Morris book, I highly recommend it. If our descendants are neither naked nor apes, could other traits still make them human? On the other hand, maybe human means the sum of what we are exactly as we are now?

What role will religion and culture play in shaping new human species? Might not some cultures seek to turn off the brain receptors that respond to euphoric drugs, which probably means they will also lose their natural body chemistry which wards off pain and depression. Other cultures might actually do the "Brave New World" thing of creating a worker species with little aspiration in life beyond doing their job and pleasing their masters. Other cultures might remove the pleasures of sexuality. Now there's an ugly thought, and there's enough Puritan mental illness remnant in our culture that that is a possibility.

My choice for homoperfectus is that species which looks pretty much the way we do, but beauty is more common place and physical defects nonexistent. Their bodies will be naturally athletic with a powerful immune system, and they will have a more complex neural system with enhanced senses. Homoperfectus will be talented and affable, clever and compassionate. Most likely sex will be better too. Isn't that what you would choose? Most of all, Homoperfectus will inherit that human spirit which drives us to constantly reach beyond survival to meaningful existence.

As we develop the role of our lead character Felix in "Drones, Clones and Pheromones" we keep reconsidering how much he should be like us and how much is enhanced. Felix has genes implanted in his DNA from both other animals and plants to restore traits that Homosapiens lost along the way from our ancestors. Our eyesight for instance is tri-color with our retinal cones dyed to filter bands of red, green and blue colors. Our ancestors had four, with the blue being divided into two bands that extended into ultraviolet. Birds still have this 4 color eyesight. More recent ancestors lost the two blue to ultraviolet senses, then even more recently we regained a single blue with no ultraviolet sensitivity. That is where we are now. It would not be a big stretch to restore ultraviolet sight in our Homoperfectus species. This could have significant survival value, and would lend visual artists a huge new pallete of colors. We can only sense about 500 pheromones, but with the restoral of the vomeronasal organ of lesser mammals, we could again recognize 1,500. The grand prize perhaps of the Homoperfectus species will be turning off the aging process once they reach maturity. Guess what? We already know how!

Director's Statement

As the producer of Wild Strawberry Films, futuristic "The Supremacy Project"I've had tons of inquiries about our film "Drones, Clones and Pheromones", the first film of the trilogy , much of it trying to ferret out what is my motive and my objectives in producing this film. First, and foremost, it's a story I find so compelling, that I cannot think of doing anything else until this gets finished. In fact, I've set about making the movie I want to see more than any other imaginable film.

"The Supremacy Project" is the story of the demise of homosapiens civilization brought on by ourselves as we collapse into partisanship politics, extreme nationalism, and xenophobia in a sick and sickening biosphere, but with the promise that our bioscience will bring forth our descendents, our superiors, homoperfectus. "Drones, Clones, and Pheromones" is the story of the first child of the new species with extraordinary mental abilities, athleticism, and biophysical and biochemical enhancements that give him mastery and power that may save us, if he can find his own humanity and ethos.

So, in the interest of sharing my passion with you, I'm publishing here the Director's Statement page of our business plan.

DIRECTOR'S COMMENTS:

“We are fast approaching the time when we take evolution into our hands, and change forever, not only our world, but ourselves. It is inevitable that one day there will be human clones among us whether we like it or not. The sequencing of the human genome, plus the biotechnology of gene splicing, plus the cloning of human beings, equals the greatest revolution in human affairs ever. How we treat these newcomers has everything to do with how they will ultimately treat us. Homosapien history is ending, and the saga of homoperfectus is about to begin.”

“Like sending one’s child to the best school, what parent could say no to choosing their children to be smarter, more talented, more healthy or athletic , and of course more beautiful than we? Unlike other films that have dealt with cloning, we are telling the story from the point of view of the clones themselves.”


Motion pictures“ have become the most powerful and fascinating kind of story telling ever invented by mankind. Listening to someone tell us a story, draws us into their mind. Reading a novel causes their voices to be heard in our own minds. Watching TV draws us only into packaged entertainment in a box. But watching a movie on a large screen surrounded by an audience in a theater, takes us into another world where we experience another life as if it were real.”

This film tells a well-researched, excellent story with a humane point of view.”

The prospect of cloning humans“ has plunged us into new realms of ethical and moral debate of parental responsibilities, kinship, and inheritance. The big question is how it will challenge our sense personal identity. How would we see ourselves if we knew our genetic makeup was not unique, in fact identical to many other people, and that someone decided we should exist and what we shall be? “

“I can honestly say that this story is so compelling that I cannot let go until it is on the movie screens of the world. I find new and wonderful things every time I look at the world created by this story, as when one looks closer and closer at a curve in fractal geometry and discovers there is infinite detail...always more to see no matter how closely one looks at it.”